Category: English Maritime Cases
SALES CONTRACT - RENUNCIATORY BREACH - FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL - OBLIGATION TO DELIVER
When FOB seller indicated an inability to provide cargo, buyer did not nominate a vessel and later, formally accepted seller’s breach. Seller claimed the non-nomination was an oversight which alleviated it from having to provide the cargo. Damages claimed by Buyer were basis losses calculated by reference to hedging or alternatively, market value.
TIME CHARTER - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - ORDER FOR SALE OF CARGO
When the vessel was sat by charterer for an extensive period of time with late or non-payment of hire, the Court was tasked with determining whether they had the power to implement an order for the sale of charterer’s cargo and whether they should.
TIME CHARTER - NYPE - DURATION - OPTION TO EXTEND
Basis verbiage in a pro forma recap, charterer argued for a 15 days extension of the time charter. Owner disagreed that an extension was due, pointing to the ultimate recap which did not reference the extension.
CHARTERPARTY – EXTENSIVE DELAY AT DISPORT - ESCALATION FROM DEMURRAGE RATE TO DETENTION RATE – BUNKER COST - WAITING TIME – FLOATING STORAGE
The vessel tendered its NOR upon arrival at the disport and after no further instructions were given by Charterer she waited 64 days before discharging. Owner claimed Charterer used the vessel as floating storage and applied a clause in the C/P enabling demurrage to be charged at an escalating rate. Charterer countered by stating the 64 days were to be charged as ordinary laytime and demurrage.
CLAIM FOR DETENTION - ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL LOSS - WHETHER DEMURRAGE RATE USED FOR CALCULATION OF DAMAGES TO BE GROSS OR NET OF COMMISSION
After sitting at the agreed upon discharge port for an extended period charterer directed the vessel to a disport not included in the fixture recap. Upon the ultimate completion of discharge owner presented charterer with a claim for detention which utilized the agreed demurrage rate. The panel would be tasked at both determining the validity of the claim and the appropriate rate to be used.
WEATHER DELAY - HOLIDAY, SHINC, & SATURDAY - AWAIT DOCUMENTS ONBOARD - ONCE ON DEMURRAGE, ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE - DETENTION - BURDEN OF PROOF
Charterer disputed owner’s demurrage calculations with weather reports. Owner disputed that the documents onboard allowance was due as the relevant clause referenced laytime and whilst awaiting documents the vessel was on demurrage. Charterer claimed both a holiday and a holiday on a Saturday should be deducted from time counting. Finally, charterer requested a documents onboard allowance whereas owner implied, “once on demurrage, always on demurrage.”
DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO A LABOR STRIKE
A labor strike at the disport interrupted the Vessel's discharge. After the voyage, the Charterer refuted the resulting demurrage basis the Gencon General Strike Clause.
NYPE – CRANE BREAKDOWN – OFF HIRE – LASHING MATERIALS – SHORE CRANE HIRE – BURDEN OF PROOF – PROVISION OF ORIGINAL INVOICES VERSUS PDF’s When one of the Vessel’s cranes couldn’t be used, charterer asserted the vessel was off hire and claimed for costs. Owner countered that as no time was lost the vessel was on hire and in response to charterer’s claim for costs, owner requested original invoices rather than .pdf’s. Owner also claimed for the cost of lashing material whilst charterer claimed for the cost of a shore crane hired due to vessel’s broken crane. [dropcap]A[/dropcap]long with...
TIME CHARTER - GULF OF ADEN TRANSIT, YEMEN DISCHARGE - PREMIUMS AND WAR RISKS - ARMED GUARDS - CREW BONUS - CHARTERER CLAIMED CULPABLE DELAY
After discharging in Yemen, the shipowner claimed for additional premiums, armed guards, the armed guards’ meals, expenses related to a crew change, and crew bonuses. The charterer rejected these charges, claiming that the charges were due to a culpable delay on the owner's part.
NYPE - INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 - APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO WANT OF PROSECUTION - LIMITATION PERIOD - APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT
Damage claims arose after the collapse of a crane on board a vessel. Arbitration commenced two years later however no submissions were made until nearly 12 years after the incident. Charterer applied to have the claim dismissed for want of prosecution by owner. The panel agreed with charterer and owner applied to the High Court for a chance to appeal.
